Your Words?= Also don’t forget that Stalin wouldn’t sign the agreements for reciprocal good treatment of prisoners (which even the Nazis did

Reality =

To quote TopWar,

“In 1929, a new Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was concluded, which provided prisoners with an even greater degree of protection than previous agreements. Germany, like most European countries, signed this document. Moscow did not sign the convention, but ratified the convention on the treatment of the wounded and sick in war that was concluded at the same time. The USSR demonstrated that it intended to act within the framework of international law. Thus, this meant that the USSR and Germany were bound by common international legal norms of warfare, which were binding on all states, regardless of whether they had joined the relevant agreements or not. Even without any conventions, it was unacceptable to exterminate prisoners of war, as the Nazis did. The USSR’s agreement and refusal to ratify the Geneva Convention did not change the situation.”

“It should also be noted that the rights of Soviet soldiers were guaranteed not only by general international legal norms, but also fell under the Hague Convention, which Russia signed. The provisions of this convention remained in force after the signing of the Geneva Convention, which all parties, including German lawyers, were aware of. The German collection of international legal acts of 1940 indicated that the Hague Agreement on the Laws and Rules of War was valid even without the Geneva Convention. In addition, it should be noted that the states that signed the Geneva Convention assumed the obligation to treat prisoners normally, regardless of whether their countries signed the convention or not. In the case of a German-Soviet war, the situation of German prisoners of war should have been a concern - the USSR did not sign the Geneva Convention.”

“Moscow also tried to provide its prisoners with maximum legal protection. Already 27 June 1941 of the USSR expressed readiness to cooperate with the International Committee of the Red Cross. On July 1, the “Regulation on Prisoners of War” was approved, which strictly complied with the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. German prisoners of war were guaranteed decent treatment, personal safety and medical assistance. This “Regulations” acted throughout the war, its violators were prosecuted in disciplinary and criminal proceedings. Moscow, recognizing the Geneva Convention, apparently hoped for an adequate response from Berlin. However, the military and political leadership of the Third Reich had already crossed the line between good and evil and was not going to apply to the Soviet “subhumans” neither the Hague nor the Geneva Convention, nor the generally accepted norms and customs of war.”

The USSR claimed that they did not sign it because the conventions at the time demanded them to separate prisoners by race which went against the USSR’s anti-racist beliefs.

Your Words?= I mean, they probably would since they may not even be issued a gun - going into war expected to pick up their dead friend’s gun and take their turn, then the next.

Reality= Enemy at the Gates is not a documentary.

To quote, Alexei Isaev

"The first myth that is repeated by the film industry in particular is that the Red Army went into battle with one rifle for every 3, 5, even 10 men, fill in the blank yourself. This myth maintains that in the USSR, near Moscow, militiamen with one rifle per 10 had to stop German tanks, even though that is madness, that is not possible. The Red Army never had big problems, specifically big problems, with small arms. This was because there were large stockpiles from the Tsarist army and then the trophies from the Polish campaign. You’ll laugh, but the source of this myth is the German Volkssturm. They really had one rifle with one clip of ammunition per 3 or 5 men. In the Red Army, in the worst case scenario, had its auxiliary troops go unarmed: drivers or artillerymen that fire guns from the rear at map squares. They don’t really need a rifle. When there was not enough guns, such as in the summer of 1941, the guns were taken from these rear line units, from the horse handlers and such. On the front line the troops were armed well. The claim that soldiers would go into battle and would have to find a weapon there is nonsense. This is a very resilient myth. There are scarier things in war than having to go into battle to get a rifle, but this myth persists. "

It is based on a small grain of truth